No, Dan Savage Is Not Acting Like a Bully

There’s a piece in The Daily Cardinal, the newspaper of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, about the recent spate of gay teen suicides, where the writer, Lydia Statz, claims that, though she supports her gay friends, Dan Savage is “being a bully” against people of faith and that the Christian Right are the real victims. This is absolutely absurd, and it’s sad to see in Madison’s paper, but let’s look at what she says:

I am horribly dismayed that it has seemingly become entirely acceptable, if not encouraged, to attack the entire Christian faith based solely on the fact that they have unique beliefs. The internet has provided, quite literally, the perfect forum for the name calling and personal attacks geared toward those whose beliefs align with the pro-life and sanctity-of-marriage camp, and it really got out of hand last week when popular sex columnist Dan Savage joined the already heated discussion.

Savage, who is openly gay and the founder of the “It Gets Better” campaign against youth bullying, made a remark during an NPR interview that asserted his belief that the church perpetuates the discrimination. A Christian listener wrote in to tell him he was offended by the comment, and stated that he and many others were deeply saddened to hear of the recent suicides. The letter was well-written, polite, and simply pointed out the hypocrisy of preaching against discriminating based on sexual preference while simultaneously discriminating against people of faith.

Savage’s reply, on the other hand, was a blatant attack on the writer and their faith, complete with references to their “magic sky-friend Jesus,” and expressions like “dehumanizing bigotries” and even, I’m sad to say, a “Fuck you.” While I fully expected him to respond in typical Savage fashion to the listener’s complaint, his full-blown attack on Christianity as a whole displayed just as much disrespect and ignorance as the people he fights against.

Though I fully support the rights of my LGBT friends to marry, adopt, and lead full and successful lives, I also grew up attending church and Sunday school. I cannot once recall hearing what Savage calls “the lies about (gay people) that vomit out of the pulpits” or learning “to see gay people as sinful, damaged, disordered, and unworthy.” Instead, the message was constantly one of love and acceptance. While I’m sure those messages are preached in some churches (Westboro Baptist, for instance) the vast majority of Christians are taught that all humans are equal and deserve respect. Moreover, it is entirely possible to be a gay Christian without giving up any part of your identity. Just ask my openly-lesbian aunt, also an ordained minister.

Okay, Lydia, here are the problems with your piece, in order:

1. You may have grown up in a Nice Happy Church that taught love and tolerance, but no, the “vast majority of Christians” are NOT taught that all humans are equal and deserve respect. Indeed, the history of Christianity is replete with examples of churches and religious institutions which have been and continue to be decidedly against the idea of equality for any but their elect. Moreover, Westboro isn’t representative of the average hateful church. Those are found in a number of denominations, but rather than focusing on a band of extremists in Kansas, one might be better served to look at, say, the Southern Baptist Convention or the Presbyterian Church in America. Both are part of the nexus of anti-gay religious hatred in this country.

2. Dan Savage is not a Christian. Why do “People of Faith” always act as if their chosen religions are above criticism when they tend to feel more than free to condemn people of other faiths and those of no faith at all? Because let me let you in on something: Telling a gay child that gay people “go to hell” is a stronger example of bullying and hate speech than any Oh So Mean things Dan Savage could ever say about a Magic Sky God.

3. I agree that we shouldn’t be cruel to each other based on disagreement about each others’ “unique beliefs,” but that does not include any old belief that someone holds dearly, if said belief is hurtful and directly responsible for damaging others’ lives. Then it’s fair game. Fundamentalist Christian beliefs, teachings and actions about LGBT people are harmful to society. Period. Therefore, “It’s mah religion, you be nice!” is not a valid response to criticism.

I appreciate that the writer supports her gay and lesbian friends having equal rights. But she needs to understand that you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Her personal experience with Christianity may be one of tolerance and love, and that’s great, but that is not the case for far too many millions of people.

About the Author

Related Posts

23 Comments

JackOctober 26, 2010 at 4:27 pm -

Ok Evan,based on your previous defense of Islam, will you rewrite the above comments in their entirety with the words “Christianity” and “Christians” replaced with “Islam” and “Muslims.” When I expressed my discomfort with the mosque near the World Trade Center, you didn’t seem willing to call a spade a spade there.

Oh, and to call my words before a “defense of Islam” betrays a childlike “black vs. white, good vs. evil” worldview, which I grew out of when I was in my teens, so I can’t help you there either.

It was a defense of American ideals.

As an atheist, I believe all religions to be equally preposterous. But they all deserve to be included in Americans’ religious freedoms. Christianity is no better nor any worse than Islam, and they both have adherents who abuse their faiths.

BrianOctober 26, 2010 at 4:59 pm -

Maybe there needs to be another YouTube initiative: “I’m an LGBT and here is how your ‘tolerant loving message’ had/has a negative impact on MY life”

These a**h***s just have no freaking’ clue what their “loving” message sounds like or the depth of the negative consequences for which it is directly responsible.

JackOctober 26, 2010 at 5:03 pm -

Your statements above look pretty “black vs. white” to me. Where are the nuances that you’re so proud to understand.

No point in discussing with you, because you’re not self aware enough to see your hypocrisy.

Black & white? Acknowledging that far too much of the Christian faith is anti-gay, and pushing back against the writer’s erroneous assumption that most Christians are sweet like her and believe in equality?

No.

You just don’t like Muslims, and even though it was pointed out to you with words, music and pop-up books that the Muslims building this community center are moderate, peaceful people, you still don’t like it.

That may be true, Jack, but that has NOTHING to do with people’s rights to build a community center in lower Manhattan! That’s the false equivalency you’re presenting.

What I know is this: lots of Western Muslims support gay rights, because lots of Western Muslims are liberals! Especially the educated ones.

Regardless, when it’s time to talky about an issue of Muslims support or lack thereof for gay rights, we will.

When it’s time to talky about whether the wingnuttiest Christians have the right to buy a building in lower Manhattan and turn it into a church (they do), or whatever else, we will.

But as I said at the time when the wingnut rage-gasm was blowing its hardest over the Park51 center, whether they support gay rights is immaterial, as regards their right to build their damned community center. Not every single issue can be reduced to gayness. Really, most issues can’t. Climate change? Has nothing to do with gays. Neither does Bechtel’s ownership of our nuclear arsenal. The Park 51 center was and is a test of our American ideals, and a majority of Americans failed it miserably. Of course, they’re still building it, so the opinions of those Americans, thank the gods, did not win.

Gary (NJ)October 27, 2010 at 9:21 am -

“rage-gasm” — good one!

JackOctober 27, 2010 at 9:53 am -

Bravo Evan, that is one of the best Julia Sugarbaker diatribes I have ever heard.

However,you are still a hypocrite… and deep down inside you know it. I have asked you over and over if this group in Manhattan supports gay rights and you always answer that it doesn’t matter. The hell it doesn’t. When you throw your support and bully pulpit behind a Christian organization that calls itself “moderate” but discriminates against gays, THEN we can talk.

and I don’t have a problem at all with liberal Muslims. I have a HUGE problem with people who don’t call greater Islam on its anti-gay beliefs. The same defenses you use for the Islamic religion would enrage you if used to defend Christians.

Of course this site isn’t really about gay rights is it? It’s about supporting your political cronies and causes. But hey, that’s your right. As I said before, whatevs…

As for the issue of Muslims, you are not entirely wrong. We must hold Muslims to the same standards as Christians or any other group. We should not ever give them a pass and we should demand that they are not anti-gay. We should condemn fundamentalist Muslims when they push anti-gay views every chance we get.

That said, we do not forbid — nor have the conversation of forbidding — anti-gay Christian churches from building houses of worship. America is filled with anti-gay churches – even mega-churches.

Given that freedom of religion ensures anti-gay institutions can build — of all kinds — then the views of gays should not play into the decision of whether this particular mosque is built.

If we forbid this mosque from being built because of alleged (and possibly real) homophobia, as a matter of fairness we would have to apply this test to all future religions that wanted to build a house of worship.

It does seem that in the case of this mosque, the Muslims are being held to an unfair standard, in that people want their views considered for a building permit. This would make them the only religious group subject to such a religious test. Thus, it is discriminatory and unfair.

JackOctober 27, 2010 at 10:35 am -

Wayne,

That was a thoughtful and reasonable response. I pretty much agree with everything you said.

I never thought that it should be illegal for the mosque to be built. They absolutely have the legal right to build it. My whole point was that the builders should be sensitive to the history of the area, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying that. We ask that in our society all the time. If they are truly moderate and want to build a bridge to the larger community, that’s probably not the best site in my opinion.

I also wouldn’t have a probelm with people speaking out against the construction of an anti-gay megachurch, but they should still have the right to build it. Just my opinion.

There is nothing wrong with speaking out against anti-gay bigotry. In fact, it is great that you are doing so.

I think the larger problem is fundamentalism of all kinds, which is a cancer — whether it comes in the form of Mormonism, Southern Baptist, Wahhabi, Shia, Jewish, etc.

When you have people in the modern era who want to live by ancient rules — and ignoring science, learning, and reality — it brings down societies.

For the good of America, we should take every opportunity to say so.

Priya LynnOctober 27, 2010 at 11:23 am -

Jack said “However,you are still a hypocrite… and deep down inside you know it. I have asked you over and over if this group in Manhattan supports gay rights and you always answer that it doesn’t matter. The hell it doesn’t.”.

And when was the last time you opposed the building of a church because the builders don’t support gay rights? Oh, right, NEVER – you hypocrite.

Jack said “My whole point was that the builders should be sensitive to the history of the area, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying that.”.

The problem with that is that the builders had NOTHING to do with the destruction of the world trade centres. To claim they should be ‘sensitive’ to the history is to say that all Islamists share responsibility for that terrorist act – that is complete b******t.

MakyuiOctober 27, 2010 at 11:26 am -

So, how far outside of New York do they have to be before they’re sufficiently “sensitive” to the “history”?

I wonder if people still think that Japanese people living in Hawaii are “insensitive” to the “history”.

JackOctober 27, 2010 at 1:09 pm -

Priya Lynn, how do you know what I’ve opposed? Have we met? I’ve been outspoken here in Atlanta in opposing Bishop Eddie Long and his church’s homophobia.

Makyui – Is it ok for Americans to talk about going on a “crusade” in the Middle East, or would that be insensitive? In my book, that would be insensitive to history.

Priya LynnOctober 27, 2010 at 1:24 pm -

Uh-huh, Jack. Conspicuously absent from your response is any mention of you opposing Long building his church, or you opposing the building of any other christian churches because it would be “insensitive”.

How do I know this? Let’s just say its an educated guess based on the fact that despite reading thousands and thousands of posts on anti-gay christianity I’ve never once seen a gay such as yourself oppose the building of any christian church, but hypocritically there’s no shortage of gays like you blaming these innocent Islamists and all Islamists in general for the terrorist attacks orchestrated by a few extremists.

MakyuiOctober 27, 2010 at 1:36 pm -

Jack, I don’t get what you’re saying. How is building a community center anywhere near the same footing as Christians perpetuating a war in the name of religion? What does that have to do with muslims building a community center?

Are you trying to say that they’re building it in-New-York-but-not-on-Ground-Zero as some sort of deliberate affront, or what?

Dan Savage attacks people solely because they are different than him or hold different beliefs. If you can’t see that as pure bullying then you have obviously never been bullied.
Seeing as bullying in all it’s forms is irrational behavior, we rational people have great difficulty understanding that bullies often have no reason for their actions.
Perhaps if Savage was an advocate for equality and equal rights, he would be able to tolerate AND accept people who are different than him.

Does Dan Savage hate me because I’m straight and I’m proud of it?

jnsmSeptember 21, 2011 at 11:43 pm -

According to Robert M, the ADL are bullies because they attack people who hold different beliefs than them (i.e. anti-Semites).

DanielSeptember 22, 2011 at 1:41 am -

Dan Savage “attacks” people because they try to make gay people seem sick or evil. But, Robert M, you probably believe gay people are sick or evil. Dan Savage wouldn’t hate you because you’re straight and proud of it (if you actually read his column or listened to his show you would know that) but he might hate you because you’re an anti-gay bigot.

Get to Know Us

Truth Wins Out is a non-profit organization that fights the "ex-gay" myth and antigay religious extremism.

TWO monitors anti-LGBT organizations, documents their lies and exposes wrongdoing. TWO specializes in turning information into action by organizing, advocating and fighting for truth, integrity, and equality for sexual minorities.